''The meeting generated more questions than answers, leaving the environmentalists frustrated and the villagers with an incomplete picture of the impact on them. You got the feeling the developers had invited the audience to comply with the authorities’ regulations but would go ahead in parallel to everyone’s concerns.''

The project Green Hills has raised a big controversy in the Roches Noires region. Between those who are suspicious of the effect of such a big construction on the environment and those who worry about the fate of the villagers, a thick confusion has been created. We talk to Catherine Leclézio, a social activist who has attended the meetings organised by the promoters and has been following the progress of the project.

Is the Green Hills project as green as its name suggests?
We don’t know, but it is being built on a vulnerable environment that includes the caves, the barachois, the mangroves, and where indigenous and other vegetation will be removed in order to set up a golf course. Golf Courses are known to be against good ecological practices.

What exactly will the proposed smart city include?
This smart city project covers 10% of 359-hectares between the Roches Noires village and the coastal road. It will include a hotel with its golf course, villas, an old age home, a shopping centre…all this complemented with schools (undefined), office space, research laboratories, a sports complex, a market and picnic sites, and nature walks. Access will apparently be unrestricted.

And the promoters are foreign, aren’t they?
Yes. Two Frenchmen heading a company registered as PR Capital Mauritius. Local experts will promote the development and ensure buy-in from the authorities and stakeholders.  It’s their first project in Mauritius, and we know they’ve also launched real estate projects in French Polynesia (Tahiti) and in France.  We are told PR Capital Mauritius, Fiducim and the French City Group are somehow linked.

Do we know anything about their projects in the Pacific?
There’s controversy about their project in Tahiti, but I am not familiar with the details. From time to time, we read media reports of discontent about the French Polynesian project as well as some launched in France.

''A project such as proposed by Green Hills’s developers is an also-ran. It is a replica of what has taken place everywhere on the island – except it is worse, because it threatens to destroy an untouched piece of land. If it was conceived as a genuine eco-tourism site, it could create a model of upliftment for Mauritians''.

There was a meeting to consult the residents and environmentalists, which you attended as a nature protagonist and an activist. Some people were happy, others were not... What exactly came out of that meeting?
Environmental activists, Roches Noires residents, and interested lay parties were present. There was consensus: this project was a fait accompli; the meeting was not a consultation. One question prevailed on everyone’s lips: how will the project impact the environment? Antagonism against the promoters was palpable; tough questions were fired about the financial viability and permits needed for the go-ahead. Various groups expressed their concerns.

Concerns about what?
Well, to begin with, two past projects haven’t seen the light of day, so the villagers expressed frustration that this third project was meeting resistance. They’re wary of the potential loss of their pristine environment but want commercial activity in the area. 
Secondly, Adi Teelock requested access to research documents, which she will scrutinise with other environmental NGOs and provide joint feedback.
And then there was the issue of water distribution, already a problem in RN, which is likely to worsen with the project. RN residents wanted details of how the authorities would deal with this problem. 

And did you have answers to your questions? 
No. The meeting generated more questions than answers, leaving the environmentalists frustrated and the villagers with an incomplete picture of the impact on them. You got the feeling the developers had invited the audience to comply with the authorities’ regulations but would go ahead in parallel to everyone’s concerns. 

Yet, the meeting was supposed to be a consultation, wasn’t it?
Yes, the developers called the meeting a consultation, but as no-one was satisfied with the outcome, the chairman of the Village Council suggested a further meeting in a more comfortable venue. The promoters have agreed.

So, putting aside the environment. What are your own objections to a project of this nature?
I’m not happy that the developers are single minded, intending to meddle with a sensitive environment for commercial gain. As foreigners, they won’t be around to see the impact of their project in the next 20, 30 years. Mauritians, on the other hand, have to live with any permanent damage. I am frustrated that so few answers were obtained from specific financial questions.

What exactly were the financial questions?
This project is said to be a Rs41-billion investment, and the financial expert in the audience asked about the financial viability, the company’s track record, and how the project would be financed.

How is that the business of the community?
Surely, the promoters have to justify to the authorities where they got the money from and whether they have enough funds to see the project through! The financial expert in the audience stated that three of the promoters’ projects overseas had failed for financial reasons. Those allegations promoted the questions about finances. The work needed for the project is extremely delicate. You need to build an infrastructure on underground caves. If you undertake that type of work and, in the process cause damage to that, you intend to fix later, and due to lack of finance, you need to abandon it, then no-one has gained anything and the environment has once again been a victim of our exploits. I think that was the intent of that line of questioning.

Were all the permits granted for the project?
That is unclear. Last year, Eco-Sud and others objected loudly to the project, and the Ministry of the Environment asked promoters to complete a holistic document covering the entire project. At the meeting, an incongruency was mentioned to the effect that the integrated Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) must be delivered now for a project that is planned over 15 years. The EDB has authorised the investment pending the environmental permits.

From the feedback we received after the meeting, some people seemed satisfied with the explanations and they were happy for the project to go ahead. Is that the impression you had, sitting in the meeting?
I didn’t get that impression. Some of the villagers felt happy about a potential commercial project in the area. Others raised concerns. For example, one fisherman said his livelihood depended on the barachois which is the breeding ground for the fish – and he feared that a hotel would degrade the mangroves, resulting in fewer fish. Others worried that they would not be allowed on the land. For me the meeting lacked clarity and transparency. The Village Council chairman suggested a referendum to determine the willingness of villagers to go ahead with the project as presented. While that is a good idea, everyone needs to have all the facts before engaging in such a process.

Having said that, the inhabitants of Roches Noires are isolated and a project in the region would bring them employment, perhaps training and upskilling. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
That would be excellent and is the sort of thing I’d like to see, but not at the detriment of the environment. RN’s villagers would like to see jobs for their children. It’s certain that an acceptable project could provide meaningful economic activity. My question is, given the current plan, what types of jobs can be expected unless economic empowerment takes centre stage? Entry-level construction, hotel, and villa jobs? Maintenance of the golf course, etc.? Do those jobs consider the social mobility of villagers and how sustainable are they? The promoters said villagers could work in the schools, and that village doctors and other professionals could set up practices in the Smart City’s office spaces. They are not in touch with the village: how many doctors and other professionals currently exist in the village who would like to rent expensive offices? What work is planned in the schools for the villagers: teaching? That won’t happen unless there are qualified teachers already resident in the village. The promoters did say there would be training for villagers who want to work on the project, and I think that excited the locals.

Isn’t that great news?
A project such as proposed by Green Hills’s developers is an also-ran. It is a replica of what has taken place everywhere on the island – except it is worse, because it threatens to destroy an untouched piece of land. If it was conceived as a genuine eco-tourism site, it could create a model of upliftment for Mauritians. Local communities could be custodian of the environment and would ensure its long-term sustainability. Such a role requires mid- to upper-level skills and careers in conservation. I can think of tour guide/environmental educator, field ecologist, marine conservationist, coral, blue economy, waste management and recycling researcher and assistant researcher, etc. These careers are in high demand and provide mobility not only in Mauritius but regionally and across the world. But development of people doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Promoters should be required to focus on and enable genuine social upliftment. These propositions don’t exclude current expertise, jobs or businesses in the village. In fact, any shopping centre risks shutting down long standing family businesses and taking commerce away from the village and towards Green Hills. That potential risk should be managed through collaboration. No development should go ahead without the active participation of residents. A skills development plan should be developed and signed off. The Human Resource Development Council (HRDC), the MITD, specialist and tertiary institutions all play a role in the funding and implementation. Entrepreneurial developments are integral to a skills development plan. Mauritius has all the support mechanisms to translate what appears to be a fantasy into a world-class model of empowerment. For such an endeavour, international funding is a realistic possibility.

How do you know that’s not the way they’re going to go?
It’s definitely not the way they’re going to go because they’ve said so. They said their golf course will be ecologically friendly and will be planted out in grass that doesn’t need irrigation. Pests will be managed using salt.

Isn’t that a good thing?
I don’t believe them and the golf is to the detriment of indigenous forests. Furthermore, Azuri, which is less than five minutes away by car already has a golf course. Surely, tourists can travel there for their golfing pursuits.

What’s your objection to the golf course?
I haven’t seen evidence that golf courses are environmentally friendly and, in this case, the terrain will come at the cost of desperately needed indigenous forests. Plus, there is a golf course in the area.

''The developers are single minded, intending to meddle with a sensitive environment for commercial gain. As foreigners, they won’t be around to see the impact of their project in the next 20, 30 years''.

People are saying, when Azuri was building houses, IRS and golf course, nobody said anything, no-one was up in arms, and now that there’s a similar project right next to it, people have suddenly woken up and are saying the developers are destroying the environment. How do you react to that?
I don’t know the background of Azuri but I know the villagers are not happy with it. Today they say Azuri should have been questioned. I think that in the years that have passed since the building of Azuri, people have developed greater consciousness towards the environment and are more aware of some of the places that have been destroyed, one of these being Balaclava. I think there’s more of an understanding that environment is precious to us and should be looked after. Green Hills proposes that the boulevard, which goes across the project, is open to everybody. People will also be able to picnic and enjoy walks through the land. However, there is no access to the sea.

So, how is this concept of a hotel away from the sea going to convince tourists to come?
That question was asked of the promoters. The response was that the tourists targetted for the hotel were middle eastern and Indian and that they don’t like the beach. We questioned it several times. There doesn’t even seem to be any access – even a small bridge or a path to the beach, which is on the other side of the coastal road.

Isn’t it a good thing if for once we have a hotel which is not taking another chunk of the beach?
I would have preferred they cut a piece of sugar cane with a nice view to put up a hotel and golf course, but not on one of the really delicate and vulnerable ecosystems in Mauritius. So, on the one hand, it’s good that people won’t go to the beach to destroy it with sun lotion, noisy boats, etc., but they’ll destroy something else.

What’s the next step after the meeting?
We believe there’s going to be another meeting. The agenda wasn’t decided.

So, you’ll be at the meeting with a number of proposals, will you?
Following some consultation with locals, I’ll be at the meeting to suggest a few proposals:

• A stakeholder group to work with the developers. Its work would be to monitor the project where it impacts their lives and provide feedback to their constituencies. A stakeholder committee should include the developers, village representatives, coastal dwellers, and ecological NGOs. Of vital importance on a stakeholder committee is youth representation.

• Consider dropping the idea of a market in favour of integrating the village into an entire eco-tourism experience by supporting the opening of homestays, eateries, fresh produce stalls, Mauritian craft shops, and other typically local products and services.

Imagine: why not a small luxury hotel plus 40 homestays in the village? Why not a village with happy streetside eateries and genuine Mauritian craft shops? Why not fishermen trained to tell locals what they know about the sea? Adventurers to take tourists on non-motorised tours of l’Ile d’Ambre and other coastline places of interest? Tour guides for the ecosystem: the mangroves, the barachois, the indigenous forest, the marshlands? Imagine world-class facilities drawing international researchers to live in Mauritius? Becoming an environmental research and education hub for Southern Africa? Holding conferences, generating knowledge, generating income and status for Mauritius? The RN village deserves to live, not bear the load of someone else's greed.